Issues for National Anti-Corruption Training Programmes in Central and Eastern Europe
Bryane Michael, Linacre College1
Most Eastern European countries are currently engaged in some form of anti-corruption training. Such training can consist of teaching anti-corruption police to "kick in doors" responsibly, auditors to find the loopy trail to the dirty cash, the concerned mother to denounce bribe-seeking in the medical officials who provide care for her children -- and the list goes on.2 Given the wide range of anti-corruption training programmes (and the even wider range of corrupt activities springing up in the post-Socialist economic environments), co-ordination of these training programmes is a priority. To address this concern, the members of the Working Group on Preventing Corruption met at the 11th Annual NISPAcee conference on April 10-12.3 Members came from Albania, Czech Republic, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine.
A Clean Education
Anti-corruption training - and more generally the development of human capital and "capacity" within the public sector - have been seen as key elements for the success of failure of anti-corruption policy (Schacter and Shah, 2001). The impetus for such training usually occurs, not due to government benevolence, but as a result of stakeholder pressure. Much of this pressure emerges as a result of action-oriented data which can be used for benchmarking and policy advocacy (UNDCP, 2001; Rischard, 2002). For example, the quantitative data shown in Figure 1 highlight the wide variation between the level and focus of anti-corruption training in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region.4 However, unlike data on rainfall for example, the medium is the message. The public availability of benchmarks and evaluations acts to motivate better figures and most importantly, real training of judges, police, auditors, civil servants and the people who can contribute to fighting corruption. The data in Figure 1 do not show actual levels of anti-corruption training in the CEE region - it shows something far more important. These data show the known or perceived levels of anti-corruption training which determine public opinion and "peer pressure" within and between countries.
Often qualitative data is much more valid (and interesting). Based on the available evidence, some countries appear to still be defining corruption while others have complicated national anti-corruption programmes bolstered by education. Such differences are usually a reflection of the country's EU accession process. Other differences do not reflect EU accession, such as the institutionally and culturally differing focus on general versus technical anti-corruption training. While much of the anti-corruption activity within the CEE region is still focused on legislation, there is little consideration of how training and education can help with the implementation of this legislation. Instead of anti-corruption training being driving by strategic priorities, it appears to be driven by the availability of donor funding for specific types of training. How can anti-corruption training move from being funding-based to being priority-based?
What a Tangled Web We Weave
The National Anti-Corruption Training Programme (NACTP) refers to the ensemble of training activities and their linkages. Much international experience suggests that institutions work together in a web of activities to form "integrity systems" (Langseth et al., 1998; Transparency International, 2003). These institutions form a system whether explicit acknowledgement of their inter-linkage is given or not - and some systems work better than others.5 Table I shows some of the activities and sectors of the NACTP along with the number of countries in the region engaged in acting in any particular activity or sector.6 In some cases, activity selection reflects strategic priorities while in other cases, it reflects chance and funding. Thinking of anti-corruption training as a system allows all stakeholders to think about anti-corruption purposively, as a system. NACTPs also help provide standard framework for evaluation and assessment.
Just Another Brick in the Wall?
Thinking about NACTPs helps stakeholders differentiate between strategy and vagary. But what are the possible strategies which can be chosen? Table 2 represents an attempt to classify the emergent or tacit strategic focus of NACTPs in the CEE region. Insufficient data exist to determine which strategic focus is most effective for NACTP performance (for example should anti-corruption education be treated as a separate course or "integrated" within other subjects?) Indeed, such strategic focus could reflect institutional and cultural preferences - de gustibus non est disputandum. While there can be no arguing about tastes (the meaning of the Latin phrase), there are seven "tastes" policymakers must choose from.
Table 2: Strategic Areas for an NACTP
Area
Albania
Czech Republic
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland*
Russia
Serbia
Ukraine
Integration
Low
High
High
High
Low?
Low
?
High
Retraining
High
High
High
High
High?
Yes
?
High
Level
?
High
High
High
?
?
?
?
Certification
?
Yes
?
Yes
Yes
?
?
?
Quality assessment
?
Yes
?
High
Yes
Yes ?
?
Yes ?
University role
High
High
Medium
High
High?
?
Medium
Note: This table represents a subjective and "inductive" assessment of countries based on a clustering of strategic priorities done by the authors based on available information. These rankings do not reflect statements by policymakers or officials.
* The Polish report focuses heavily on the University sector making the assessment of the non-university sector difficult.
First, should ethics and anti-corruption training generally be treated as a separate course or should they be integrated into topic specific courses? Second, what should be the relative weight to assign new training versus the re-training of existing civil servants and others? Third, what is the importance of anti-corruption education given numerous survey results indicating that anti-corruption education is not important (and others which cite it as very important)? Fourth, what weight should be given to practical versus theoretical training? Fifth, who should certify anti-corruption education/training programmes? Sixth, how should the quality and performance of the anti-corruption education programmes be assessed or evaluated? Finally, what is the role of educational institutions and specifically the university in producing proactive thinking about anti-corruption? It is often the failure to address these questions which makes CEE aid recipients dependent on ad hoc or donor led training.
Hanging Together
Defining a NACTP is important, but it must be integrated into the wider public sector reform programme.7 How can such capacity building occur given receding budgets and a weakening research sector in the CEE? Out of the many possible topics, there are four which deserve special mention. First, the key activity is a co-ordination of all sectors - with special participation from the "grass roots" level and the private sector which can provide finance needed to help alleviate budgetary constraints. Second, if institutional development is to be undertaken, existing institutions should be further equipped and strengthened instead of created ex-nihilo.8 Third, politicians too have a role to play and should be included in the NACTP. The creation of rules for politicians and generalised politician training is an important element in creating capacity as well as in building political will. Fourth, given the rising importance of information technologies and e-government, a vital element of the NACTP will consist of the creation of websites for e-networking, case databases (for public services with cases which can get "misplaced"), increasing use of electronic applications and forms, distance learning in anti-corruption, and electronically mediated exchange. Such technologies can even help turn NACTPs into IACTPs or International Anti-Corruption Training Programmes. Given the trans-national nature of much corruption in the CEE region, there is a strong case to be made for international co-operation. The exchange of concrete anti-corruption training materials represents a first important step in the CEE countries hanging together to fight corruption.
References
Council of Europe. Programme Octopus. Available at:
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal%5Faffairs/Legal%5Fco%2Doperation/Combating%5Feconomic%5Fcrime/Programme%5FOCTOPUS/
Dabrowski, M., S. Gomulka, and J. Rostowski. (2000). Whence Reform? A Critique of the Stiglitz Perspective. London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance Paper 471.
Haarhuis, C. and F. Leeuw. (2000). Measuring and Explaining Variance between Anti-Corruption Policies.
Huther, J. and A. Shah. (2000). Anti-Corruption Policies and Programs: A Framework for Evaluation. World Bank Working Papers 2501.
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and P. Zoido Lobaton. (1999). Governance Matters. Policy Research Working Paper 2196. The World Bank: Washington D.C.
Langseth, Petter, Rick Stapenhurst, and Jeremy Pope. (1997). The Role of a National Integrity System in Fighting Corruption. EDI Working Paper 400/142. Washington: The World Bank.
Michael, B. (2003). Review of Central and Eastern European Anti-Corruption Case Studies. Presented at the 11th Annual NISPAcee Conference 10-14 April 2003.
Miller, W. (2001). A culture of corruption: coping with government in post-communist Europe. Budapest; New York: CEU Press.
Octopus Programme. (2001). The Prevention of Corruption in Central And Eastern Europe: Regional Seminar on the Prevention of Corruption. Conference held in Bratislava 19-21 November.
O'Rourke, P.J. (2000). The godfather decade: an encounter with post-Soviet corruption. Foreign Policy 121: Nov. /Dec.
Rischard, J-F. (2002). High Noon: 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them. New York: Basic Books.
Schacter, M. and A. Shah. (2001). Look Before You Leap: Notes for Corruption Fighters.
IOG Policy Brief 11.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd ed. London: Sage.
Stiglitz, J. (1999). Whither Reform? Ten Years of the Transition. Paper presented at the World Bank's Annual Bank Conference on Economic Development 1999.
Transparency International. (2003). TI Sourcebook. Available at: www.transparency.org.
UNDCP. (2001). Anti-Corruption Tool Kit: Monitoring and Evaluation.
1 The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the opinions of the authors' organisations, the Working Group referred to in the text, nor to the NISPA.
2 For more on corruption and anti-corruption in the region, see Miller (2001), Octopus Programme (2001), or the operational documents of donors working in the field such as Council of Europe (2003).
3 NISPAcee stands for National Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe.
4 These are composite scores based on a standardised evaluation methodology used to assess the level and nature of CEE anti-corruption training. If a country had a activity or was involved in a particular sector, it received a point. Points were aggregated to arrive at these composite scores. For more, see Michael (2003).
5 Detractors would claim that viewing anti-corruption in this way repeats the famous "functionalist fallacy" (everything in the world does not have to be linked to everything else). Given the empirical evidence from Transparency International (2002) and Kaufmann et al. (1999), there are compelling reasons to think these institutions do act together.
6 For more on the evaluation of anti-corruption programmes, see Haarhuis and Leeuw (2000), Huther and Shah. (2000).
7 This section relies heavily on data gathered as part of a grounded theory exercise conducted at the meeting - see Strauss and Corbin. (1998) for more on grounded theory.
8 Such institutional concerns reflect the broader argument in transition about the role of pre-existing institutions. See Stiglitz (1999) of a defense and Dabrowski et al. (2000) for a critique.
1